Very, very, interesting...

[GrayGhost]

Good points by everyone, for the balls being ok, and not. I just did a Google for Babe Ruth signed balls and looked at about a dozen photos. Most, if not all, had the "standing small b", which the ones in the article do, which kinda blows my theory next to the paper exemplars.

Also, I have never closed on a house..hahaha. but that point is well taken, plus, signing a ball is very difficult too. Ive done it once in an amateur baseball league I work for, for a kid w Downs Syndrome, and my signature, back when I had more than a sloppy scribble did look very different too, than on a check.

Can't wait for the next article tho. I love this stuff.

[travrosty]

If you imagine the capital B in Babe as a stack of books, would the stack fall over?

In the real examples, the B is leaning considerably to the right. It certainly looks like the stack would fall over. On the questionable balls, I think not in most of the examples, maybe tilt to the right a little, but the book stack stays up. In the real paper examples, the stacks falls right over.

The exemplars question is interesting.

---------------------------------

Now I believe that people are using 3rd party authenticated autographs as examplars. The problem with this, of course, is that if a mistake was made, and there are some "unusual characteristics" in the 3rd party auth sig, then that gets perpetuated down the line untl you have a bunch of people believing they know what a real sig looks like.


I agree. It looks like the article used some solid real signatures of Ruth to do the comparing to. Lettters and personal correspondence, a signed check.
Many times Ruth autographs that have been authenticated and stickered are now the new exemplar, which is dangerous. If you keep doing that, you end up with autographs from first (known exemplar) to last (authenticated signature using other authenticated signatures as templates) that looks vastly different from one another.

If you compare a candidate for a Ruth signature to a known exemplar, and it looks mostly the same, and you authenticate it after careful research, fine. But then the next candidate has to be compared to the known exemplar and not the second one. Otherwise you can have an autograph that looks mostly like the second one, and then another than looks mostly like the third one, and then another that looks mostly like the fourth one, and after 50 times you have a known exemplar of Ruth on one end, and something totally different on the other and you can't figure out how you got there.


One mistake has to be an isolated one, and you isolate it by doing the prudent thing and not using it as an exemplar for another candidate. Only verifiable autographs should be exemplars. Otherwise they can spawn many more mistakes.

Like a game of telephone we played as kids. Johnny went to the beach and fell asleep becomes Johnny went to the bench and felt his sleeves.

[thetruthisoutthere]

I've been reading those Nash articles with great interest and so I did a little test.

I went out and purchased some baseballs, took them home and signed them. I had never signed a baseball before, but one thing was evident, and that is my signature is slightly different on a baseball as compared to a flat surface.

The very first thing I noticed was that I signed much more deliberately. I have to mention that I signed all three baseballs on every available spot.

On some areas my signature was taller. On some areas my baseline changed. On some areas the "LL" in my last name (Williams) changed heights. One some areas there was a difference in the two "L's."

The bottom line is that the variations were incredible and ranging.

I'd also like to know who those "non-hobby" forensic people are. So far I am not impressed.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

I went out and purchased some baseballs, took them home and signed them.

I'd love to have one. A Morales hologram would be a huge plus.

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

I've been reading those Nash articles with great interest and so I did a little test.

I went out and purchased some baseballs, took them home and signed them. I had never signed a baseball before, but one thing was evident, and that is my signature is slightly different on a baseball as compared to a flat surface.

The very first thing I noticed was that I signed much more deliberately. I have to mention that I signed all three baseballs on every available spot.

On some areas my signature was taller. On some areas my baseline changed. On some areas the "LL" in my last name (Williams) changed heights. One some areas there was a difference in the two "L's."

The bottom line is that the variations were incredible and ranging.

I'd also like to know who those "non-hobby" forensic people are. So far I am not impressed.

like

[egbeachley]

I think I see what he's talking about, but since I am a novice I am easily influenced. I need to read all the installments.

But if I was to choose one ball that is definitely not real, it would be the 5th one. And that is supposedly the $300,000 one.

[Mr. Zipper]

I'm not taking a position one way or another either, but the first few letters in signing a ball you are signing "up a hill" and the last few you are "going down a hill." Depending on the angle of your wrist, etc., it makes sense this could affect slant significantly as compared to flat signatures. A side-by-side to known authentic balls would be a more valid comparison.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

I'm not taking a position one way or another either, but the first few letters in signing a ball you are signing "up a hill" and the last few you are "going down a hill." Depending on the angle of your wrist, etc., it makes sense this could affect slant significantly as compared to flat signatures. A side-by-side to known authentic balls would be a more valid comparison.

This is not necessarily true, you can hold a ball so the sweet spot is further to the right if you want and actually sign the first few letters (and your whole name for that matter) basically flat, by slowly rotating the ball with your left hand while you sign. Either that or rotating between first and last names. Starting even with the first letters of your first name, signing slightly downhill to finish the end of your first name, then rotate the ball for your last name, and doing the same thing. I think most people would rotate slightly between first and last names. By doing it this way the up or downhill angle of any one letter is pretty slight, its not like signing a golf ball.

Since Ruth signed so many balls, I am sure he had his way of signing it, and didn't struggle in the least as he was pretty used to it after 25 years of practice. Most of the balls selling for record prices are 1940's and particularly later 1940's balls. I would think he would know how to dash off his signature on a ball by then.

The questionable balls look slow and contrived, like someone was trying hard. If you sign a ball slow adn deliberate, you push and labor the pen across the ball, but by signing it faster, you glide it over, and you get that more of a 'flow' look to it.

I found out that if you sign a baseball fast, it makes the most sense, as the pen glides quicker along and sticks less, with less tremors and hesitations. And yes, I signed a baseball today too. I didn't find significant differences in the way it looks compared to a flat. And I didn't find it difficult to sign, and I sign with a readable signature, I just signed it fairly quick like I sign my flats TTM that the droves of admirers send to me.

[mr2686]

This is not necessarily true, you can hold a ball so the sweet spot is further to the right if you want and actually sign the first few letters (and your whole name for that matter) basically flat, by slowly rotating the ball with your left hand while you sign.

That's true, in theory, however it depends on how the person first grips the ball, and how slow they turn it as they're signing it. Unless you're a machine, it's really easy to have to stop and reposition your hand to turn the ball or at the very least go "down hill" with your signing hand. Either way would cause some variation in the sig. Again, I'm not saying the balls in question are good or bad, but that it is possible for variations on balls to exist for all kinds of reasons...now whether or not those variations can legitimately be authenicated is another matter all together.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by travrosty

This is not necessarily true, you can hold a ball so the sweet spot is further to the right if you want and actually sign the first few letters (and your whole name for that matter) basically flat, by slowly rotating the ball with your left hand while you sign. Either that or rotating between first and last names. Starting even with the first letters of your first name, signing slightly downhill to finish the end of your first name, then rotate the ball for your last name, and doing the same thing. I think most people would rotate slightly between first and last names. By doing it this way the up or downhill angle of any one letter is pretty slightly, its not like signing a golf ball.

This is a possibility... however, we just don't know exactly how he routinely signed. Perhaps there is film somewhere that depicts his hand movements and angles as he signs. I've had a lot of baseballs signed in-person and my recollection is most signers hold the ball still and move their pen hand rather than the ball... it might not be so easy to sign a surface as it rotates.

Either way, a comparison to known authentic balls would be more valid.

[mschwade]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

This is a possibility... however, we just don't know exactly how he routinely signed. Perhaps there is film somewhere that depicts his hand movements and angles as he signs. I've had a lot of baseballs signed in-person and my recollection is most signers hold the ball still and move their pen hand rather than the ball... it might not be so easy to sign a surface as it rotates.

Either way, a comparison to known authentic balls would be more valid.

I would think it would be hard to move because you are probably holding it still against a flat surface so the signature is solid.

[mschwade]

I can tell you that the flat I own was sold to me by the guy that got it as an 11 year old boy back in 1947.. It also has the slants that are exhibited on the left-hand column, but like I said, it's also on a flat (business card). When comparing mine, the photo (#8) circa 1940's appears most like mine (without the from though).

FYI - I don't own a Ruth ball, nor do I have any desire to own one. Would love to hear from someone that owns one though and knows for a fact that it is indeed authentic.